Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
<snip>

ChrisBFRPKY said:
I would be far more concerned if Trump was selling Uranium to Russia, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


I would be also, however, I would be even more concerned if he was trying to sell Uranium to Saudi Arabia.... oh, hang on!
Click to expand...


Not least because the U.S. routinely imports large quantities of uranium from Russia.
 
Craig4 said:
Perhaps if Trump was less of a dirty Russian whore, the FBI would not have monitored his attempts at collusion.
Click to expand...
It bugs me when you say this. I feel like it's an insult to honest whores.

quadraginta said:
Not least because the U.S. routinely imports large quantities of uranium from Russia.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I love this kind of information. It makes me feel smart. I looked this up from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A caveat, the page considers only uranium used as fuel; I don't know the stats for weapons-grade uranium and I'm sure it gets very complicated depending on isotopes, enrichment etc.
 
Minoosh said:
It bugs me when you say this. I feel like it's an insult to honest whores.

Thank you. I love this kind of information. It makes me feel smart. I looked this up from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A caveat, the page considers only uranium used as fuel; I don't know the stats for weapons-grade uranium and I'm sure it gets very complicated depending on isotopes, enrichment etc.
Click to expand...

Both countries (and China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, DPRK) tend to have their own weapons-grade enrichment programmes.
 
So what is up with Andrew Napolitano's sudden turn on Trump? Trump says it's because he did not nominate Napolitano to the Supreme Court. I don't really track which Trump sycophants have turned on him, but it seems there must be a growing body of information that has not been made public. What do people like Mattis and Kelly do with their loyalty when they jump off the Trump train? If they believe Trump is endangering national security, what do they do with this information? Perhaps revelations would be unprofessional, or could in fact harm national security by airing our dirty laundry in public. But it's hard for me to believe these guy have just gone away to play golf or putter around the house.

Done in this thread because Napolitano is saying Trump did in fact obstruct justice.
 
jimbob said:
Both countries (and China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, DPRK) tend to have their own weapons-grade enrichment programmes.
Click to expand...
I was surprised to see Kazakhstan so high on the list, as well as smaller players such as Niger and Namibia.

Plus I've always wondered about black markets - why is it such a threat if a country has its own enrichment program? Wouldn't there be tons and tons available from disarmament? What happens to all those warheads?

I know, I know ... I could look it up.
 
Minoosh said:
I was surprised to see Kazakhstan so high on the list, as well as smaller players such as Niger and Namibia.

Plus I've always wondered about black markets - why is it such a threat if a country has its own enrichment program? Wouldn't there be tons and tons available from disarmament? What happens to all those warheads?

I know, I know ... I could look it up.
Click to expand...

I've been studying a lot about nuclear power lately. If I understand this correctly. It depends on what it is. There are two kinds of fissile material used to make bombs. Pure plutonium and I believe about 99 percent pure U235.

I'm pretty sure most uranium used for power is under 10 percent pure U235. Most of the rest of the fuel is U238 which is not fissile. Since it is highly difficult to separate U235 from U238, not just anyone can do it. It requires very specialized expensive centrifuges as well as the know how to get it done. This is the enrichment process. One of the ways they control bomb development is to keep the technology on how to enrich fuel in limited hands.

Also the fuel is reactor specific. Buy a Westinghouse reactor you're locked into buying Westinghouse fuel for the the life of that reactor. Same goes for GE and all the other companies. And they make their fuel under the supervision of their respective countries and the Atomic Energy Commission. They keep close tabs on the inventories as well.

Small footnote. I may be off on the percentages . But the point is reactor fuel is not suitable to make bombs.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I'll answer if you truly want to hear my opinion on Hillary. Here ya go. I think her past conduct of deleting emails, destroying equipment, throwing interns under the bus, pay for play etc all come at a cost. To me this would deem her testimony as questionable whether under oath or not. Evidence would need to be presented along with any statement Hillary makes in order to assign belief IMO.
Click to expand...


According to Ziggurat, you're making a stupid argument:

Ziggurat said:
It's stupid to disbelieve something just because the wrong person says it.
Click to expand...


But maybe I shouldn't believe what Ziggurat says, because after all it was Ziggurat who said it.
 
Minoosh said:
So what is up with Andrew Napolitano's sudden turn on Trump? Trump says it's because he did not nominate Napolitano to the Supreme Court. I don't really track which Trump sycophants have turned on him, but it seems there must be a growing body of information that has not been made public. What do people like Mattis and Kelly do with their loyalty when they jump off the Trump train? If they believe Trump is endangering national security, what do they do with this information? Perhaps revelations would be unprofessional, or could in fact harm national security by airing our dirty laundry in public. But it's hard for me to believe these guy have just gone away to play golf or putter around the house.

Done in this thread because Napolitano is saying Trump did in fact obstruct justice.
Click to expand...

Napolitano may be looking past the tip of his nose. He may be actually looking at the Mueller report and what it actually says. He probably has enough wealth socked away that he doesn't need the Fox job, so he can look to the future.

The Mueller report isn't going away, Trump did obstruct justice, and that fact is going to end up in the books. Mueller could not see his way clear to flatly say so because he knew the DOJ would not indict Trump. But Mueller got as close as he felt he ethically could when he stated that he would have exonerated Trump of obstruction if he could have. But he didn't, because he couldn't. He couldn't, because he knew Trump obstructed justice.
 
Minoosh said:
It bugs me when you say this. I feel like it's an insult to honest whores.

Thank you. I love this kind of information. It makes me feel smart. I looked this up from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A caveat, the page considers only uranium used as fuel; I don't know the stats for weapons-grade uranium and I'm sure it gets very complicated depending on isotopes, enrichment etc.
Click to expand...

Fear not, I would classify women making a living at it as sex workers.
 
Minoosh said:
So what is up with Andrew Napolitano's sudden turn on Trump? Trump says it's because he did not nominate Napolitano to the Supreme Court. I don't really track which Trump sycophants have turned on him, but it seems there must be a growing body of information that has not been made public. What do people like Mattis and Kelly do with their loyalty when they jump off the Trump train? If they believe Trump is endangering national security, what do they do with this information? Perhaps revelations would be unprofessional, or could in fact harm national security by airing our dirty laundry in public. But it's hard for me to believe these guy have just gone away to play golf or putter around the house.

Done in this thread because Napolitano is saying Trump did in fact obstruct justice.
Click to expand...

I guess everyone has a different point at which they can no longer ignore what is in front of them. Perhaps Napolitano has reached that point.
 
phiwum said:
And yet the reason you believe Barr is equally applicable to the testimony of Hillary or pretty much anyone testifying before Congress.

"'Spinning' there would likely put himself in jeopardy, why would he do that?"

People, including, perhaps, Hillary, "spin" before Congress. They put things in a particular way to give impressions, given that such spin does not entail a provable lie under oath. "I think spying occurred," is a good example. There is literally no reason that Barr would fear consequences of saying this, since there are no consequences. Unless there are memos written by Barr saying that he does not believe spying occurred, no one could prove that this is a lie whether or not it is.

What jeopardy do you see for Barr saying that he thinks spying occurred when he does not? The term "spying" is itself vague. If surveillance counts as spying, then surely he's right. There was some surveillance of Trump campaign members, if I'm not mistaken. But "spying" makes it sound rather sinister, just as his boss would like it.
Click to expand...

Again the point was it will be interesting to learn about these facts that lead Barr to his statement. I don't think it will be productive to have a debate over who has the more trustworthy statements to Congress. I'm only interested in the nature of the facts to be revealed at some point.

phiwum said:
Ignoring the pivot to Hillary, Upchurch didn't say that having contacts is a crime. He was speaking about overriding security concerns given actual financial interests in foreign nations is a genuine concern.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theories and hypotheiticals? I think there's a section somewhere for those.

Chris B.
 
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1122455738058776581

NEW: Barr has warned Dems on House Judiciary he won’t show up to this week's highly anticipated hearing if they stick to the format Nadler has proposed for the questioning, according to a committee source.

Barr, we’re told, is objecting to Nadler plan to allow for a round (after members question) of 30 minutes for each side, allowing committee counsels to question. And he is opposed to move to closed session to discuss the unredacted report.
Click to expand...

Article embedded in second tweet.

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1122484071286878209

Barr promised transparency, but now he’s unwilling to sit for questions because Nadler planned to have an attorney ask the questions.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/1122496635819495426

Christine Blasey Ford bravely took questions from an outside lawyer because Republicans insisted on it. But now the Attorney General of the United States is afraid of being questioned by staff lawyers about the Mueller report?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1122502524274139142

Nadler just now on Barr. “The witness is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period.” Asked what he will do if Barr doesn’t relent, Nadler warns: “Then we will have to subpoena him, and we will have to use whatever means we can to enforce the subpoena.”
Click to expand...
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Again the point was it will be interesting to learn about these facts that lead Barr to his statement. I don't think it will be productive to have a debate over who has the more trustworthy statements to Congress. I'm only interested in the nature of the facts to be revealed at some point.



Conspiracy theories and hypotheiticals? I think there's a section somewhere for those.

Chris B.
Click to expand...

Your post works better without the space in between. Conspiracy theories and hypotheticals indeed!
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Can't they just subpoena immediately? I don't know why they're content dragging the process out; no one involved is going to cooperate willingly.
Click to expand...

I think they want to shield themselves from being called partisan and unprofessional by giving the criminals in the White House and DoJ plenty of opportunity to cooperate. It's silly, because Trump loyalists will call Democrats partisan no matter what, but I think it's more to show independents how unruly the Trump regime is.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Can't they just subpoena immediately? I don't know why they're content dragging the process out; no one involved is going to cooperate willingly.
Click to expand...

This Supreme Court has shown a tendency to punt on decisions it doesn't want to make by referring them back due to technicalities.
By giving the Trump folks every opportunity to comply, the House is showing that cooperation requires a Court Order.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom